McLean v. Clark

Background

BAHSID McLean, who was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against persons who violate federal rights while acting under state authority. He alleged that he was arraigned in Bronx Supreme Court on May 20, 2015, for possessing and knowingly making dangerous contraband in prison. He stated that the charges were eventually dismissed because, in his view, the courts did not consider all the facts. He sued Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark, the Bronx Supreme Court, and Rikers Island Detention Facility, seeking money damages.

The court had previously allowed McLean to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because McLean was a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, the court was required to screen his complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally but must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against Darcel Clark

The court dismissed the claims against Darcel Clark. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions within their official duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court found that McLean’s claims against Clark concerned actions within the scope of her official duties and connected with conducting a trial. It dismissed those claims because they sought money from an immune defendant and as frivolous under the prisoner-screening statute.

Claims Against the Bronx Supreme Court

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the Bronx Supreme Court. The Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued in federal court without a waiver or congressional authorization, and that protection extends to state agencies and instrumentalities. The court concluded that New York State courts are state instrumentalities, that New York had not waived this immunity, and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983. The court therefore dismissed the claims as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and as frivolous.

Claims Against Rikers Island

The court dismissed the claims against Rikers Island because Rikers Island is not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983. The court applied decisions holding that a correctional facility or jail is not a § 1983 person.

Malicious Prosecution Claim

To state a malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983, McLean had to allege a criminal proceeding, a favorable ending, lack of probable cause, actual malice, and a seizure or other deprivation of liberty. The court also explained that federal law requires the criminal proceeding to end in a way that affirmatively indicates the plaintiff’s innocence. A dismissal that leaves guilt or innocence unresolved does not meet that requirement.

The court found McLean’s allegations insufficient. He did not identify the person who allegedly initiated the charges; the defendants he named were immune or otherwise not proper § 1983 defendants. He also did not allege facts showing that the charges were dismissed in a way affirmatively indicating his innocence, that the proceeding lacked probable cause, or that the defendants acted with actual malice. The court dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Opportunity to Amend and Other Orders

The court granted McLean 60 days to file an amended complaint because he might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim. The amended complaint had to identify the individuals involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, explain how McLean’s rights were violated and what injuries resulted, provide addresses for named defendants, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court permitted McLean to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not know a defendant’s name, but stated that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period.

The court directed the Clerk to mail McLean a copy of the order and stated that no summons would issue at that time. It warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within 60 days, absent good cause, would lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.